Elaine Showalter

Feminist criticism in the wilderness

Pluralism and the feminist critique
Disponvel em: <seas3.elte.hu/coursematerial/.../Showalter.doc> cesso em ! de
outu"ro de #$%&
'omen have no wilderness in them( )he* are provident instead
+ontent in the ti,ht hot cell of their hearts )o eat dust* "read.
-ouise .o,an( /0'omen0/
1n a splendidl* witt* dialo,ue of %234( +arol*n 5eil"run and +atharine
6timpson identi7ed two poles of feminist literar* criticism. )he 7rst of
these modes( ri,hteous( an,r*( and admonitor*( the* compared to the 8ld
)estament( 0loo9in, for the sins and errors of the past0. )he second mode(
disinterested and see9in, 0the ,race of ima,ination0( the* compared to the
:ew )estament. .oth are necessar*( the* concluded( for onl* the
;eremiahs of ideolo,* can lead us out of the 0 <,*pt of female servitude0 to
the promised land of humanism. % =atthew rnold also thou,ht that
literar* critics mi,ht perish in the wilderness "efore the* reached the
promised land of disinterestedness. 5eil"run and 6timpson were neo>
rnoldian as "e7tted mem"ers of the +olum"ia and .arnard faculties. .ut
if( in the %2!$s( feminist literar* critics are still wanderin, in the
wilderness( we are in ,ood compan*? for( as @eoAre* 5artman tells us( all
criticism is in the wilderness. # Feminist critics ma* "e startled to 7nd
ourselves in this "and of theoretical pioneers( since in the merican
literar* tradition the wilderness has "een an eBclusivel* masculine
domain. Cet "etween feminist ideolo,* and the li"eral ideal of
disinterestedness lies the wilderness of theor*( which we too must ma9e
our home.
Dntil ver* recentl*( feminist criticism has not had a theoretical "asis? it has
"een an empirical orphan in the theoretical storm. 1n %234( 1 was
persuaded that no theoretical manifesto could adequatel* account for the
varied methodolo,ies and ideolo,ies which called themselves feminist
readin, or writin,. 3 .* the neBt *ear( nnette Eolodn* had added her
o"servation that feminist literar* criticism appeared 0more li9e a set of
interchan,ea"le strate,ies than an* coherent school or shared ,oal
orientation.0 & 6ince then( the eBpressed ,oals have not "een nota"l*
uni7ed. .lac9 critics protest the 0massive silence0 of feminist criticism
a"out "lac9 and )hird>'orld women writers and call for a "lac9 feminist
aesthetic that would deal with "oth racial and seBual politics. =arBist
feminists wish to focus on class alon, with ,ender as a crucial determinant
of literar* production. 4 -iterar* historians want to uncover a lost tradition.
+ritics trained in deconstructionist methodolo,ies wish to 0s*nthesiFe a
literar* criticism that is "oth teBtual and feminist.0 G Freudian and -acanian
critics want to theoriFe a"out women0s relationship to lan,ua,e and
si,ni7cation.
n earl* o"stacle to constructin, a theoretical framewor9 for feminist
criticism was the unwillin,ness of man* women to limit or "ound an
eBpressive and d*namic enterprise. )he openness of feminist criticism
appealed particularl* to mericans who perceived the structuralist( post>
structuralist( and deconstructionist de"ates of the %23$s as arid and
falsel* o"Hective( the epitome of a pernicious
>3$!>
masculine discourse from which man* feminists wished to escape.
Iecallin, in Ioom of 8ne0s 8wn how she had "een prohi"ited from
enterin, the universit* li"rar*( the s*m"olic sanctuar* of the male lo,os(
Jir,inia 'oolf wisel* o"served that while it is 0unpleasant to "e loc9ed
out . . . it is worse( perhaps( to "e loc9ed in.0 dvocates of the
antitheoretical position traced their descent from 'oolf and from other
feminist visionaries( such as =ar* Dal*( drienne Iich and =ar,uerite
Duras( who had satiriFed the sterile narcissism of male scholarship and
cele"rated women0s fortunate eBclusion from its patriarchal methodolatr*.
)hus for some( feminist criticism was an act of resistance to theor*( a
confrontation with eBistin, canons and Hud,ments( what ;osephine
Donovan calls 0a mode of ne,ation within a fundamental dialectic0. s
;udith Fetterle* declared in her "oo9( )he Iesistin, Ieader( feminist
criticism has "een characteriFed "* 0a resistance to codi7cation and a
refusal to have its parameters prematurel* set.0 1 have discussed
elsewhere( with considera"le s*mpath*( the suspicion of monolithic
s*stems and the reHection of scientism in literar* stud* that man* feminist
critics have voiced. 'hile scienti7c criticism stru,,led to pur,e itself of the
su"Hective( feminist criticism reasserted the authorit* of eBperience. 3
Cet it now appears that what loo9ed li9e a theoretical impasse was actuall*
an evolutionar* phase. )he ethics of awa9enin, have "een succeeded( at
least in the universities( "* a second sta,e characteriFed "* anBiet* a"out
the isolation of feminist criticism from a critical communit* increasin,l*
theoretical in its interests and indiAerent to women0s writin,. )he question
of how feminist criticism should de7ne itself with relation to the new
critical theories and theorists has occasioned sharp de"ate in <urope and
the Dnited 6tates. :ina uer"ach has noted the a"sence of dialo,ue and
as9s whether feminist criticism itself must accept responsi"ilit*:
Feminist critics seem particularl* reluctant to de7ne themselves
to the uninitiated. )here is a sense in which our sisterhood has
"ecome too powerful? as a school( our "elief in ourself is so potent
that we decline communication with the networ9s of power and
respecta"ilit* we sa* we want to chan,e. !
.ut rather than declinin, communication with these networ9s( feminist
criticism has indeed spo9en directl* to them( in their own media: P=-(
Diacritics( @l*ph( )el Kuel( :ew -iterar* 5istor*( and +ritical 1nquir*. For
the feminist critic see9in, clari7cation( the proliferation of communiquLs
ma* itself prove confusin,.
)here are two distinct modes of feminist criticism( and to conMate them Nas
most commentators doO is to remain permanentl* "emused "* their
theoretical potentialities. )he 7rst mode is ideolo,ical? it is concerned with
the feminist as reader( and it oAers feminist readin,s of teBts which
consider the ima,es and stereot*pes of women in literature( the omissions
and misconceptions a"out women in criticism( and woman>as>si,n in
semiotic s*stems. )his is not all feminist readin, can do? it can "e a
li"eratin, intellectual act( as drienne Iich proposes:
radical critique of literature( feminist in its impulse( would ta9e the
wor9 7rst of all as a clue to how we live( how we have "een livin,( how we
have "een led to ima,ine ourselves( how our lan,ua,e has trapped as well
as li"erated us( how the ver* act of namin, has "een till now a male
prero,ative( and how we can "e,in to see and name >> and therefore live >>
afresh. 2
>3$2>
)his invi,oratin, encounter with literature( which 1 will call feminist readin,
or the feminist critique( is in essence a mode of interpretation( one of
man* which an* compleB teBt will accommodate and permit. 1t is ver*
diPcult to propose theoretical coherence in an activit* which "* its nature
is so eclectic and wideran,in,( althou,h as a critical practice feminist
readin, has certainl* "een inMuential. .ut in the free pla* of the
interpretive 7eld( the feminist critique can onl* compete with alternative
readin,s( all of which have the "uilt>in o"solescence of .uic9s( cast awa*
as newer readin,s ta9e their plase. s Eolodn*( the most sophisticated
theorist of feminist interpretation( has conceded:
ll the feminist is assertin,( then( is her own equivalent ri,ht to
li"erate new Nand perhaps diAerentO si,ni7cances from these same
teBts? and( at the same time( her ri,ht to choose which features of
a teBt she ta9es as relevant "ecause she is( after all( as9in, new
and diAerent questions of it. 1n the process( she claims neither
de7nitiveness nor structural completeness for her diAerent readin,s
and readin, s*stems( "ut onl* their usefulness in reco,niFin, the
particular achievements of woman>as>author and their applica"ilit*
in conscientiousl* decodin, woman>as>si,n.
Iather than "ein, discoura,ed "* these limited o"Hectives( Eolodn* found
them the happ* cause of the 0pla*ful pluralism0 of feminist critical theor*(
a pluralism which she "elieves to "e 0the onl* critical stance consistent
with the current status of the lar,er women0s movement.0 %$ 5er feminist
critic dances adroitl* throu,h the theoretical mine7eld.
Eeenl* aware of the political issues involved and presentin, "rilliant
ar,uments( Eolodn* nonetheless fails to convince me that feminist
criticism must alto,ether a"andon its hope 0of esta"lishin, some "asic
conceptual model0. 1f we see our critical Ho" as interpretation and
reinterpretation( we must "e content with pluralism as our critical stance.
.ut if we wish to as9 questions a"out the process and the conteBts of
writin,( if we ,enuinel* wish to de7ne ourselves to the uninitiated( we
cannot rule out the prospect of theoretical consensus at this earl* sta,e.
ll feminist criticism is in some sense revisionist( questionin, the
adequac* of accepted conceptual structures( and indeed most
contemporar* merican criticism claims to "e revisionist too. )he most
eBcitin, and comprehensive case for this 0revisionar* imperative0 is made
"* 6andra @il"ert: at its most am"itious( she asserts( feminist criticism
0wants to decode and dem*stif* all the dis,uised questions and answers
that have alwa*s shadowed the connections "etween teBtualit* and
seBualit*( ,enre and ,ender( ps*choseBual identit* and cultural authorit*.0
%% .ut in practice( the revisionar* feminist critique is redressin, a
,rievance and is "uilt upon eBistin, models. :o one would den* that
feminist criticism has aPnities to other contemporar* critical practices and
methodolo,ies and that the "est wor9 is also the most full* informed.
:onetheless( the feminist o"session with correctin,( modif*in,(
supplementin,( revisin,( humaniFin,( or even attac9in, male critical
theor* 9eeps us dependent upon it and retards our pro,ress in solvin, our
own theoretical pro"lems. 'hat 1 mean here "* 0male critical theor*0 is a
concept of creativit*( literar* histor*( or literar* interpretation "ased
entirel* on male eBperience and put forward as universal. 6o lon, as we
loo9 to androcentric models for our most "asic principles >> even if we
revise them "* addin, the feminist frame of
>3%$>
reference >> we are learnin, nothin, new. nd when the process is so one>
sided( when male critics "oast of their i,norance of feminist criticism( it is
disheartenin, to 7nd feminist critics still anBious for approval from the
0white fathers0 who will not listen or repl*. 6ome feminist critics have ta9en
upon themselves a revisionism which "ecomes a 9ind of homa,e? the*
have made -acan the ladies0 man of Diacritics and have forced Pierre
=achere* into those dar9 alle*s of the ps*che where <n,els feared to
tread. ccordin, to +hristiane =a9ward( the pro"lem is even more serious
in France than in the Dnited 6tates: 01f neofeminist thou,ht in France
seems to have ,round to a halt(0 she writes( 0it is "ecause it has continued
to feed on the discourse of the masters.0 %#
1t is time for feminist criticism to decide whether "etween reli,ion and
revision we can claim an* 7rm theoretical ,round of our own. 1n callin, for
a feminist criticism that is ,enuinel* women centered( independent( and
intellectuall* coherent( 1 do not mean to endorse the separatist fantasies
of radical feminist visionaries or to eBclude from our critical practice a
variet* of intellectual tools. .ut we need to as9 much more searchin,l*
what we want to 9now and how we can 7nd answers to the questions that
come from our eBperience. 1 do not thin9 that feminist criticism can 7nd a
usa"le past in the androcentric critical tradition. 1t has more to learn from
women0s studies than from <n,lish studies( more to learn from
international feminist theor* than from another seminar on the masters. 1t
must 7nd its own su"Hect( its own s*stem( its own theor*( and its own
voice. s Iich writes of <mil* Dic9inson( in her poem 01 m in Dan,er >> 6ir
>>(0 we must choose to have the ar,ument out at last on our own premises.
Defning the feminine: gynocritics and the woman's test
woman0s writin, is alwa*s feminine? it cannot help "ein, feminine? at
its "est it is most feminine? the onl* diPcult* lies in de7nin, what we
mean "* feminine.
Jir,inia 'oolf
1t is impossi"le to de7ne a feminine practice of writin,( and this is an
impossi"ilit* that will remain( for this practice will never "e theoriFed(
enclosed( encoded >> which doesn0t mean that it doesn0t eBist.
5LlQne +iBous( /0)he -au,h of the =edusa0/
1n the past decade( 1 "elieve( this process of de7nin, the feminine has
started to ta9e place. Feminist criticism has ,raduall* shifted its center
from revisionar* readin,s to a sustained investi,ation of literature "*
women. )he second mode of feminist criticism en,endered "* this process
is the stud* of women as writers( and its su"Hects are the histor*( st*les(
themes( ,enres( and structures of writin, "* women? the ps*chod*namics
of female creativit*? the traHector* of the individual or collective female
career? and the evolution and laws of a female literar* tradition. :o <n,lish
term eBists for such a specialiFed critical discourse( and so 1 have invented
the term 0,*nocritics.0 Dnli9e the feminist critique( ,*nocritics oAers man*
theoretical opportunities. )o see women0s writin, as our primar* su"Hect
forces us to ma9e the leap to a new conceptual vanta,e point and to
rede7ne the
>3%%>
nature of the theoretical pro"lem "efore us. 1t is no lon,er the ideolo,ical
dilemma of reconcilin, revisionar* pluralisms "ut the essential question of
diAerence. 5ow can we constitute women as a distinct literar* ,roupR
'hat is the diAerence of women0s writin,R
Patricia =e*er 6pac9s( 1 thin9( was the 7rst academic critic to notice this
shift from an androcentric to a ,*nocentric feminist criticism. 1n )he
Female 1ma,ination N %234O( she pointed out that few feminist theorists
had concerned themselves with women0s writin,. 6imone de .eauvoir
treatment of women writers in )he 6econd 6eB 0alwa*s su,,ests an a
priori tendenc* to ta9e them less seriousl* than their masculine
counterparts0? =ar* <llmann( in )hin9in, a"out 'omen( characteriFed
women0s literar* success as escape from the cate,ories of womanhood?
and( accordin, to 6pac9s( Eate =illett( in 6eBual Politics( 0has little interest
in women ima,inative writers.0 %3 6pac9s0s wideran,in, stud* inau,urated
a new period of feminist literar* histor* and criticism which as9ed( a,ain
and a,ain( how women0s writin, had "een diAerent( how womanhood itself
shaped women0s creative eBpression. 1n such "oo9s as <llen =oers -iterar*
'omen N %23GO( m* -iterature of )heir 8wn N %233O( :ina .a*m 'oman0s
Fiction N %23!O( 6andra @il"ert and 6usan @u"ar )he =adwoman in the
ttic N %232O( and =ar,aret 5omans 'omen 'riters and Poetic 1dentit*
N %2!$O( and in hundreds of essa*s and papers( women0s writin, asserted
itself as the central proHect of feminist literar* stud*.
)his shift in emphasis has also ta9en place in <uropean feminist criticism.
)o date( most commentar* on French feminist critical discourse has
stressed its fundamental dissimilarit* from the empirical merican
orientation( its unfamiliar intellectual ,roundin, in lin,uistics( =arBism(
neo>Freudian and -acanian ps*choanal*sis( and Derridean deconstruction.
Despite these diAerences( however( the new French feminisms have much
in common with radical merican feminist theories in terms of intellectual
aPliations and rhetorical ener,ies. )he concept of Lcriture fLminine( the
inscription of the female "od* and female diAerence in lan,ua,e and teBt(
is a si,ni7cant theoretical formulation in French feminist criticism(
althou,h it descri"es a Dtopian possi"ilit* rather than a literar* practice.
5LlQne +iBous( one of the leadin, advocates of Lcriture fLminine( has
admitted that( with onl* a few eBceptions( 0there has not *et "een an*
writin, that inscri"es femininit*(0 and :anc* =iller eBplains that Lcriture
fLminine0privile,es a teBtualit* of the avant>,arde( a literar* production of
the late twentieth centur*( and it is therefore fundamentall* a hope( if not
a "lueprint( for the future.0 %& :onetheless( the concept of Lcriture
fLminine provides a wa* of tal9in, a"out women0s writin, which reasserts
the value of the feminine and identi7es the theoretical proHect of feminist
criticism as the anal*sis of diAerence. 1n recent *ears( the translations of
important wor9 "* ;ulia Eristeva( +iBous( and -uce 1ri,ara* and the
eBcellent collection :ew French Feminisms have made French criticism
much more accessi"le to merican feminist scholars. %4
<n,lish feminist criticism( which incorporates French feminist and =arBist
theor* "ut is more traditionall* oriented to teBtual interpretation( is also
movin, toward a focus on women0s writin,. %G )he emphasis in each
countr* falls somewhat diAerentl*: <n,lish feminist criticism( essentiall*
=arBist( stresses oppression? French feminist criticism( essentiall*
ps*choanal*tic( stresses repression? merican
>3%#>
feminist criticism( essentiall* teBtual( stresses eBpression. ll( however(
have "ecome ,*nocentric. ll are stru,,lin, to 7nd a terminolo,* that can
rescue the feminine from its stereot*pical associations with inferiorit*.
De7nin, the unique diAerence of women0s writin,( as 'oolf and +iBous
have warned( must present a slipper* and demandin, tas9. 1s diAerence a
matter of st*leR @enreR <BperienceR 8r is it produced "* the readin,
process( as some teBtual critics would maintainR 6pac9s calls the
diAerence of women0s writin, a 0delicate diver,enc*0 testif*in, to the
su"tle and elusive nature of the feminine practice of writin,. Cet the
delicate diver,enc* of the woman0s teBt challen,es us to respond with
equal delicac* and precision to the small "ut crucial deviations( the
cumulative wei,htin,s of eBperience and eBclusion( that have mar9ed the
histor* of women0s writin,. .efore we can chart this histor*( we must
uncover it( patientl* and scrupulousl*? our theories must "e 7rml*
,rounded in readin, and research. .ut we have the opportunit*( throu,h
,*nocritics( to learn somethin, solid( endurin,( and real a"out the relation
of women to literar* culture.
)heories of women0s writin, presentl* ma9e use of four models of
diAerence: "iolo,ical( lin,uistic( ps*choanal*tic( and cultural. <ach is an
eAort to de7ne and diAerentiate the qualities of the woman writer and the
woman0s teBt? each model also represents a school of ,*nocentric feminist
criticism with its own favorite teBts( st*les( and methods. )he* overlap "ut
are rou,hl* sequential in that each incorporates the one "efore. 1 shall tr*
now to sort out the various terminolo,ies and assumptions of these four
models of diAerence and evaluate their usefulness.
Women's writing and woman's body
=ore "od*( hence more writin,.
+iBous( 0)he -au,h of the =edusa0
8r,anic or "iolo,ical criticism is the most eBtreme statement of ,ender
diAerence( of a teBt indeli"l* mar9ed "* the "od*: anatom* is teBtualit*.
.iolo,ical criticism is also one of the most si"*lline and perpleBin,
theoretical formulations of feminist criticism. 6impl* to invo9e anatom*
ris9s a return to the crude essentialism( the phallic and ovarian theories of
art( that oppressed women in the past. Jictorian ph*sicians "elieved that
women0s ph*siolo,ical functions diverted a"out twent* percent of their
creative ener,* from "rain activit*. Jictorian anthropolo,ists "elieved that
the frontal lo"es of the male "rain were heavier and more developed than
female lo"es and thus that women were inferior in intelli,ence.
'hile feminist criticism reHects the attri"ution of literal "iolo,ical
inferiorit*( some theorists seem to have accepted the metaphorical
implications of female "iolo,ical diAerence in writin,. 1n )he =adwoman in
the ttic( for eBample( @il"ert and @u"ar structure their anal*sis of
women0s writin, around metaphors of literar* paternit*. 01n patriarchal
western culture(0 the* maintain( 0. . . the teBt0s author is a father( a
pro,enitor( a procreator( an aesthetic patriarch whose pen is an
instrument of ,enerative power li9e his penis.0 -ac9in, phallic authorit*(
the* ,o on to su,,est( women0s writin, is profoundl* mar9ed "* the
anBieties of this diAerence: 01f the pen is a metaphorical penis( from what
or,an can females ,enerate teBtsR0 %3
>3%3>
)o this rhetorical question @il"ert and @u"ar oAer no repl*? "ut it is a
serious question of much feminist theoretical discourse. )hose critics who(
li9e m*self( would protest the fundamental analo,* mi,ht repl* that
women ,enerate teBts from the "rain or that the word>processor( with its
compactl* coded microchips( its inputs and outputs( is a metaphorical
wom". )he metaphor of literar* paternit*( as uer"ach has pointed out in
her review of )he =adwoman( i,nores 0an equall* timeless and( for me(
even more oppressive metaphorical equation "etween literar* creativit*
and child"irth.0 %! +ertainl* metaphors of literar* maternit* predominated
in the ei,hteenth and nineteenth centuries? the process of literar* creation
is analo,icall* much more similar to ,estation( la"or( and deliver* than it
is to insemination. Descri"in, )hac9era*0s plan for 5enr* <smond( for
eBample( Dou,las ;errold Hoviall* remar9ed( 0Cou have heard( 1 suppose(
that )hac9era* is "i, with twent* parts( and unless he is wron, in his time(
eBpects the 7rst installment at +hristmas.0 %2 N1f to write is
metaphoricall* to ,ive "irth( from what or,an can males ,enerate teBtsRO
6ome radical feminist critics( primaril* in France "ut also in the Dnited
6tates( insist that we must read these metaphors as more than pla*ful?
that we must seriousl* rethin9 and rede7ne "iolo,ical diAerentiation and
its relation to women0s writin,. )he* ar,ue that 0women0s writin, proceeds
from the "od*( that our seBual diAerentiation is also our source.0 #$ 1n 8f
'oman .orn( Iich eBplains her "elief that
female "iolo,* . . . has far more radical implications than we
have *et come to appreciate. Patriarchal thou,ht has limited female
"iolo,* to its own narrow speci7cations. )he feminist vision has
recoiled from female "iolo,* for these reasons? it will( 1 "elieve(
come to view our ph*sicalit* as a resource rather than a destin*. 1n
order to live a full* human life( we require not onl* control of our
"odies . . . we must touch the unit* and resonance of our
ph*sicalit*( the corporeal ,round of our intelli,ence. #%
Feminist criticism written in the "iolo,ical perspective ,enerall* stresses
the importance of the "od* as a source of ima,er*. licia 8stri9er( for
eBample( ar,ues that contemporar* merican women poets use a fran9er(
more pervasive anatomical ima,er* than their male counterparts and that
this insistent "od* lan,ua,e refuses the spurious transcendence that
comes at the price of den*in, the Mesh. 1n a fascinatin, essa* on 'hitman
and Dic9inson( )erence Di,,or* shows that ph*sical na9edness( so potent
a poetic s*m"ol of authenticit* for 'hitman and other male poets( had
ver* diAerent connotations for Dic9inson and her successors( who
associated na9edness with the o"Hecti7ed or seBuall* eBploited female
nude and who chose instead protective ima,es of the armored self. ##
Feminist criticism which itself tries to "e "iolo,ical( to write from the
critic0s "od*( has "een intimate( confessional( often innovative in st*le and
form. Iachel .lau DuPlessis /0'ashin, .lood0/( the introduction to a special
issue of Feminist 6tudies on the su"Hect of motherhood( proceeds( in short
l*rical para,raphs( to descri"e her own eBperience in adoptin, a child( to
recount her dreams and ni,htmares( and to meditate upon the 0healin,
uni7cation of "od* and mind "ased not onl* on the lived eBperiences of
motherhood as a social institution . . . "ut also on a "iolo,ical power
spea9in, throu,h us.0 #3 6uch criticism ma9es
>3%&>
itself de7antl* vulnera"le( virtuall* "ares its throat to the 9nife( since our
professional ta"oos a,ainst self>revelation are so stron,. 'hen it
succeeds( however( it achieves the power and the di,nit* of art. 1ts
eBistence is an implicit re"u9e to women critics who continue to write(
accordin, to Iich( 0from somewhere outside their female "odies0. 1n
comparison to this Mowin, confessional criticism( the ti,ht>lipped 8l*mpian
intelli,ence of such teBts as <liFa"eth 5ardwic9 6eduction and .etra*al or
6usan 6onta, 1llness as =etaphor can seem arid and strained.
Cet in its o"sessions with the 0corporeal ,round of our intelli,ence(0
feminist "iocriticism can also "ecome cruell* prescriptive. )here is a sense
in which the eBhi"ition of "lood* wounds "ecomes an initiation ritual quite
separate and disconnected from critical insi,ht. nd as the editors of the
Hournal Kuestions fLministes point out( 0it is . . . dan,erous to place the
"od* at the center of a search for female identit*. . . . )he themes of
otherness and of the .od* mer,e to,ether( "ecause the most visi"le
diAerence "etween men and women( and the onl* one we 9now for sure to
"e permanent . . . is indeed the diAerence in "od*. )his diAerence has
"een used as a preteBt to /Hustif*/ full power of one seB over the other0
Ntrans. Cvonne Iochette>8FFello( :FF( p. #%!O. )he stud* of "iolo,ical
ima,er* in women0s writin, is useful and important as lon, as we
understand that factors other than anatom* are involved in it. 1deas a"out
the "od* are fundamental to understandin, how women conceptualiFe
their situation in societ*? "ut there can "e no eBpression of the "od* which
is unmediated "* lin,uistic( social( and literar* structures. )he diAerence
of woman0s literar* practice( therefore( must "e sou,ht Nin =iller0s wordsO
in 0the "od* of her writin, and not the writin, of her "od*0. #&
Women's writing and women's language
)he women sa*( the lan,ua,e *ou spea9 poisons *our ,lottis ton,ue
palate lips. )he* sa*( the lan,ua,e *ou spea9 is made up of words that are
9illin, *ou. )he* sa*( the lan,ua,e *ou spea9 is made up of si,ns that
ri,htl* spea9in, desi,nate what men have appropriated.
=onique 'itti,( -es @uLrillQres
-in,uistic and teBtual theories of women0s writin, as9 whether men and
women use lan,ua,e diAerentl*? whether seB diAerences in lan,ua,e use
can "e theoriFed in terms of "iolo,*( socialiFation( or culture? whether
women can create new lan,ua,es of their own? and whether spea9in,(
readin,( and writin, are all ,ender mar9ed. merican( French( and .ritish
feminist critics have all drawn attention to the philosophical( lin,uistic( and
practical pro"lems of women0s use of lan,ua,e( and the de"ate over
lan,ua,e is one of the most eBcitin, areas in ,*nocriticism. Poets and
writers have led the attac9 on what Iich calls 0the oppressor0s lan,ua,e(0 a
lan,ua,e sometimes criticiFed as seBist( sometimes as a"stract. .ut the
pro"lem ,oes well "e*ond reformist eAorts to pur,e lan,ua,e of its seBist
aspects. s :ell* FurmanS eBplains 01t is throu,h the medium of lan,ua,e
that we de7ne and cate,oriFe areas of diAerence and similarit*( which in
turn allow us to comprehend
>3%4>
the world around us. =ale>centred cate,oriFations predominate in
merican <n,lish and su"tl* shape our understandin, and perception of
realit*? this is wh* attention is increasin,l* directed to the inherentl*
oppressive aspects for women of a male>constructed lan,ua,e s*stem.0 #4
ccordin, to +arol*n .ur9eS( the lan,ua,e s*stem is at the centre of
French feminist theor*:
)he central issue in much recent women0s writin, in France is to
7nd and use an appropriate female lan,ua,e. -an,ua,e is the
place to "e,in: a prise de conscience Tcapture of consciousnessU
must "e followed "* a prise de la parole Tcapture of speechU. . . . 1n
this view( the ver* forms of the dominant mode of discourse show
the mar9 of the dominant masculine ideolo,*. 5ence( when a
woman writes or spea9s herself into eBistence( she is forced to
spea9 in somethin, li9e a forei,n ton,ue( a lan,ua,e with which
she ma* "e uncomforta"le. #G
=an* French feminists advocate a revolutionar* lin,uism( an oral "rea9
from the dictatorship of patriarchal speech. nnie -eclerc( in Parole de
femme( calls on women 0to invent a lan,ua,e that is not oppressive( a
lan,ua,e that does not leave speechless "ut that loosens the ton,ue0
Ntrans. +ourtivron( :FF( p. %32O. +hantal +hawaf( in an essa* on 0-a chair
lin,uistique0( connects "iofeminism and lin,uism in the view that women0s
lan,ua,e and a ,enuinel* feminine practice of writin, will articulate the
"od*:
1n order to reconnect the "oo9 with the "od* and with pleasure(
we must disintellectualiFe writin,. . . . nd this lan,ua,e( as it
develops( will not de,enerate and dr* up( will not ,o "ac9 to the
Meshless academicism( the stereot*pical and servile discourses that
we reHect.
. . . Feminine lan,ua,e must( "* its ver* nature( wor9 on life
passionatel*( scienti7call*( poeticall*( politicall* in order to ma9e it
invulnera"le.
T)rans. Iochette>8FFello( :FF( pp. %33>3!U
.ut scholars who want a women0s lan,ua,e that is intellectual and
theoretical( that wor9s inside the academ*( are faced with what seems li9e
an impossi"le paradoB( as VaviQre @authier has lamented: 0s lon, as
women remain silent( the* will "e outside the historical process. .ut( if
the* "e,in to spea9 and write as men do( the* will enter histor* su"dued
and alienated? it is a histor* that( lo,icall* spea9in,( their speech should
disrupt0 Ntrans. =aril*n . u,ust( :FF( pp. %G#>3O. 'hat we need( =ar*
;aco"us has proposed( is a women0s writin, that wor9s within 0male0
discourse "ut wor9s 0ceaselessl* to deconstruct it: to write what cannot "e
written(0 and accordin, to 6hoshana Felman( 0the challen,e facin, the
woman toda* is nothin, less than to /reinvent/ lan,ua,e( . . . to spea9 not
onl* a,ainst( "ut outside of the specular phallo,ocentric structure( to
esta"lish the status of which would no lon,er "e de7ned "* the phallac* of
masculine meanin,.0 #3
.e*ond rhetoric( what can lin,uistic( historical( and anthropolo,ical
research tell us a"out the prospects for a women0s lan,ua,eR First of all(
the concept of a women0s lan,ua,e is not ori,inal with feminist criticism? it
is ver* ancient and appears frequentl* in fol9lore and m*th. 1n such m*ths(
the essence of women0s lan,ua,e is its secrec*? what is reall* "ein,
descri"ed is the male fantas* of the
>3%G>
eni,matic nature of the feminine. 5erodotus( for eBample( reported that
the maFons were a"le lin,uists who easil* mastered the lan,ua,es of
their male anta,onists( althou,h men could never learn the women0s
ton,ue. 1n )he 'hite @oddess( Io"ert @raves romanticall* ar,ues that a
women0s lan,ua,e eBisted in a matriarchal sta,e of prehistor*? after a
,reat "attle of the seBes( the matriarch* was overthrown and the women0s
lan,ua,e went under,round( to survive in the m*sterious cults of <leusis
and +orinth and the witch covens of 'estern <urope. )ravelers and
missionaries in the seventeenth and ei,hteenth centuries "rou,ht "ac9
accounts of 0women0s lan,ua,es0 amon, merican 1ndians( fricans( and
sians Nthe diAerences in lin,uistic structure the* reported were usuall*
super7cialO. )here is some ethno,raphic evidence that in certain cultures
women have evolved a private form of communication out of their need to
resist the silence imposed upon them in pu"lic life. 1n ecstatic reli,ions( for
eBample( women( more frequentl* than men( spea9 in ton,ues( a
phenomenon attri"uted "* anthropolo,ists to their relative
inarticulateness in formal reli,ious discourse. .ut such ritualiFed and
unintelli,i"le female 0lan,ua,es0 are scarcel* cause for reHoicin,? indeed( it
was "ecause witches were suspected of esoteric 9nowled,e and
possessed speech that the* were "urned. #!
From a political perspective( there are interestin, parallels "etween the
feminist pro"lem of a women0s lan,ua,e and the recurrin, 0lan,ua,e
issue0 in the ,eneral histor* of decoloniFation. fter a revolution( a new
state must decide which lan,ua,e to ma9e oPcial: the lan,ua,e that is
0ps*cholo,icall* immediate0( that allows 0the 9ind of force that spea9in,
one0s mother ton,ue permits0? or the lan,ua,e that 0is an avenue to the
wider communit* of modern culture0( a communit* to whose movements
of thou,ht onl* 0forei,n0 lan,ua,es can ,ive access. #2 )he lan,ua,e issue
in feminist criticism has emer,ed( in a sense( after our revolution( and it
reveals the tensions in the women0s movement "etween those who would
sta* outside the academic esta"lishments and the institutions of criticism
and those who would enter and even conquer them.
)he advocac* of a women0s lan,ua,e is thus a political ,esture that also
carries tremendous emotional force. .ut despite its unif*in, appeal( the
concept of a women0s lan,ua,e is riddled with diPculties. Dnli9e 'elsh(
.reton( 6wahili( or mharic( that is( lan,ua,es of minorit* or coloniFed
,roups( there is no mother ton,ue( no ,enderlect spo9en "* the female
population in a societ*( which diAers si,ni7cantl* from the dominant
lan,ua,e. <n,lish and merican lin,uists a,ree that 0there is a"solutel* no
evidence that would su,,est the seBes are prepro,rammed to develop
structurall* diAerent lin,uistic s*stems.0 Furthermore( the man* speci7c
diAerences in male and female speech( intonation( and lan,ua,e use that
have "een identi7ed cannot "e eBplained in terms of 0two separate
seBspeci7c lan,ua,es0 "ut need to "e considered instead in terms of
st*les( strate,ies( and conteBts of lin,uistic performance. 3$ <Aorts at
quantitative anal*sis of lan,ua,e in teBts "* men or women( such as =ar*
5iatt0s computeriFed stud* of contemporar* 7ction( )he 'a* 'omen 'rite
N %233O( can easil* "e attac9ed for treatin, words apart from their
meanin,s and purposes. t a hi,her level( anal*ses which loo9 for
0feminine st*le0 in the repetition of st*listic devices( ima,e patterns( and
s*ntaB in women0s writin, tend to confuse innate forms with the
overdetermined results of literar* choice. -an,ua,e and st*le are never
raw and
>3%3>
instinctual "ut are alwa*s the products of innumera"le factors( of ,enre(
tradition( memor*( and conteBt.
)he appropriate tas9 for feminist criticism( 1 "elieve( is to concentrate on
women0s access to lan,ua,e( on the availa"le leBical ran,e from which
words can "e selected( on the ideolo,ical and cultural determinants of
eBpression. )he pro"lem is not that lan,ua,e is insuPcient to eBpress
women0s consciousness "ut that women have "een denied the full
resources of lan,ua,e and have "een forced into silence( euphemism( or
circumlocution. 1n a series of drafts for a lecture on women0s writin, Ndrafts
which she discarded or suppressedO( 'oolf protested a,ainst the
censorship which cut oA female access to lan,ua,e. +omparin, herself to
;o*ce( 'oolf noted the diAerences "etween their ver"al territories: 0:ow
men are shoc9ed if a woman sa*s what she feels Nas ;o*ce doesO. Cet
literature which is alwa*s pullin, down "linds is not literature. ll that we
have ou,ht to "e eBpressed >> mind and "od* >> a process of incredi"le
diPcult* and dan,er.0 3%
0ll that we have ou,ht to "e eBpressed >> mind and "od*.0 Iather than
wishin, to limit women0s lin,uistic ran,e( we must 7,ht to open and
eBtend it. )he holes in discourse( the "lan9s and ,aps and silences( are not
the spaces where female consciousness reveals itself "ut the "linds of a
0prison>house of lan,ua,e0. 'omen0s literature is still haunted "* the
,hosts of repressed lan,ua,e( and until we have eBorcised those ,hosts( it
ou,ht not to "e in lan,ua,e that we "ase our theor* of diAerence.
Women's writing and woman's psyche
Ps*choanal*ticall* oriented feminist criticism locates the diAerence of
women0s writin, in the author0s ps*che and in the relation of ,ender to the
creative process. 1t incorporates the "iolo,ical and lin,uistic models of
,ender diAerence in a theor* of the female ps*che or self( shaped "* the
"od*( "* the development of lan,ua,e( and "* seB>role socialiFation. 5ere
too there are man* diPculties to overcome? the Freudian model requires
constant revision to ma9e it ,*nocentric. 1n one ,rotesque earl* eBample
of Freudian reductivism( )heodor Iei9 su,,ested that women have fewer
writin, "loc9s than men "ecause their "odies are constructed to facilitate
release: 0'ritin,( as Freud told us at the end of his life( is connected with
urinatin,( which ph*siolo,icall* is easier for a woman >> the* have a wider
"ladder.0 3# @enerall*( however( ps*choanal*tic criticism has focused not
on the capacious "ladder Ncould this "e the or,an from which females
,enerate teBtsRO "ut on the a"sent phallus. Penis env*( the castration
compleB( and the 8edipal phase have "ecome the Freudian coordinates
de7nin, women0s relationship to lan,ua,e( fantas*( and culture. +urrentl*
the French ps*choanal*tic school dominated "* -acan has eBtended
castration into a total metaphor for female literar* and lin,uistic
disadvanta,e. -acan theoriFes that the acquisition of lan,ua,e and the
entr* into its s*m"olic order occurs at the 8edipal phase in which the child
accepts his or her ,ender identit*. )his sta,e requires an acceptance of
the phallus as a privile,ed si,ni7cation and a consequent female
displacement( as +ora Eaplan has eBplained:
>3%!>
)he phallus as si,ni7er has a central( crucial position in lan,ua,e(
for if lan,ua,e em"odies the patriarchal law of the culture( its "asic
meanin,s refer to the recurrin, process "* which seBual diAerence
and su"Hectivit* are acquired. . . . )hus the little ,irl0s access to the
6*m"olic( i.e.( to lan,ua,e and its laws( is alwa*s ne,ative and/or
mediated "* introsu"Hective relation to a third term( for it is
characteriFed "* an identi7cation with lac9. 33
1n ps*choanal*tic terms( 0lac90 has traditionall* "een associated with the
feminine( althou,h -acN9Oanian critics can now ma9e their statements
lin,uisticall*. =an* feminists "elieve that ps*choanal*sis could "ecome a
powerful tool for literar* criticism( and recentl* there has "een a renewed
interest in Freudian theor*. .ut feminist criticism "ased in Freudian or post>
Freudian ps*choanal*sis must continuall* stru,,le with the pro"lem of
feminine disadvanta,e and lac9. 1n )he =adwoman in the ttic( @il"ert
and @u"ar carr* out a feminist revision of 5arold .loom0s 8edipal model of
literar* histor* as a conMict "etween fathers and sons and accept the
essential ps*choanal*tic de7nition of the woman artist as displaced(
disinherited( and eBcluded. 1n their view( the nature and 0diAerence0 of
women0s writin, ties in its trou"led and even tormented relationship to
female identit*? the woman writer eBperiences her own ,ender as 0a
painful o"stacle or even a de"ilitatin, inadequac*0. )he nineteenth>
centur* woman writer inscri"ed her own sic9ness( her madness( her
anoreBia( her a,orapho"ia( and her paral*sis in her teBts? and althou,h
@il"ert and @u"ar are dealin, speci7call* with the nineteenth centur*( the
ran,e of their allusion and quotation su,,ests a more ,eneral thesis:
)hus the loneliness of the female artist( her feelin,s of alienation
from male predecessors coupled with her need for sisterl*
precursors and successors( her ur,ent sense of her need for a
female audience to,ether with her fear of the anta,onism of male
readers( her culturall* conditioned timidit* a"out self>
dramatiFation( her dread of the patriarchal authorit* of art( her
anBiet* a"out the impropriet* of female invention >> all these
phenomena of 0inferioriFation0 mar9 the woman writer0s stru,,le for
artistic selfde7nition and diAerentiate her eAorts at self>creation
from those of her male counterpart. 3&
1n 0<mphasis dded0( =iller ta9es another approach to the pro"lem of
ne,ativit* in ps*choanal*tic criticism. 5er strate,* is to eBpand Freud0s
view of female creativit* and to show how criticism of women0s teBts has
frequentl* "een unfair "ecause it has "een "ased in Freudian
eBpectations. 1n his essa* 0)he Ielation of the Poet to Da*dreamin,0
N %2$!O( a Freud maintained that the unsatis7ed dreams and desires of
women are chieM* erotic? these are the desires that shape the plots of
women0s 7ction. 1n contrast( the dominant fantasies "ehind men0s plots
are e,oistic and am"itious as well as erotic. =iller shows how women0s
plots have "een ,ranted or denied credi"ilit* in terms of their conformit*
to this phallocentric model and that a ,*nocentric readin, reveals a
repressed e,oistic/ am"itious fantas* in women0s writin, as well as in
men0s. 'omen0s novels which
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
a 6ee #$th +entur* -iterar* +riticism( 6ection 3.
>3%2>
are centrall* concerned with fantasies of romantic love "elon, to the
cate,or* disdained "* @eor,e <liot and other serious women writers as
0sill* novels0? the smaller num"er of women0s novels which inscri"e a
fantas* of power ima,ine a world for women outside of love( a world(
however( made impossi"le "* social "oundaries.
)here has also "een some interestin, feminist literar* criticism "ased on
alternatives to Freudian ps*choanal*tic theor*: nnis Pratt0s ;un,ian
histor* of female archet*pes( .ar"ara Ii,ne*0s -ain,ian stud* of the
divided self in women0s 7ction( and nn Dou,las0s <ri9sonian anal*sis of
inner space in nineteenthcentur* women0s writin,. 34 nd for the past few
*ears( critics have "een thin9in, a"out the possi"ilities of a new feminist
ps*choanal*sis that does not revise Freud "ut instead emphasiFes the
development and construction of ,ender identities.
)he most dramatic and promisin, new wor9 in feminist ps*choanal*sis
loo9s at the pre>8edipal phase and at the process of ps*choseBual
diAerentiation. :anc* +hodorow0s )he Ieproduction of =otherin,:
Ps*choanal*sis and the 6ociolo,* of @ender N %23!O has had an enormous
inMuence on women0s studies. +hodorow revises traditional ps*choanal*tic
concepts of diAerentiation( the process "* which the child comes to
perceive the self as separate and to develop e,o and "od* "oundaries.
6ince diAerentiation ta9es place in relation to the mother Nthe primar*
careta9erO( attitudes toward the mother 0emer,e in the earliest
diAerentiation of the self0? 0the mother( who is a woman "ecomes and
remains for children of "oth ,enders the other( or o"Hect0 3G )he child
develops core ,ender identit* concomitantl* with diAerentiation( "ut the
process is not the same for "o*s and ,irls. "o* must learn his ,ender
identit* ne,ativel* as "ein, not>female( and this diAerence requires
continual reinforcement. 1n contrast( a ,irl0s core ,ender identit* is
positive and "uilt upon sameness( continuit*( and identi7cation with the
mother. 'omen0s diPculties with feminine identit* come after the 8edipal
phase( in which male power and cultural he,emon* ,ive seB diAerences a
transformed value. +hodorow0s wor9 su,,ests that shared parentin,( the
involvement of men as primar* careta9ers of children( will have a profound
eAect on our sense of seB diAerence( ,ender identit*( and seBual
preference.
.ut what is the si,ni7cance of feminist ps*choanal*sis for literar*
criticismR 8ne thematic carr*>over has "een a critical interest in the
mother>dau,hter con7,uration as a source of female creativit*. 33
<liFa"eth "el0s "old investi,ation of female friendship in contemporar*
women0s novels uses +hodorow0s theor* to show how not onl* the
relationships of women characters "ut also the relationship of women
writers to each other are determined "* the ps*chod*namics of female
"ondin,. "el too confronts .loom0s paradi,m of literar* histor*( "ut unli9e
@il"ert and @u"ar she sees a 0triadic female pattern0 in which the 8edipal
relation to the male tradition is "alanced "* the women writer0s pre>
8edipal relation to the female tradition. 0s the d*namics of female
friendship diAer from those of male0( "el concludes( 0the d*namics of
female literar* inMuence also diver,e and deserve a theor* of inMuence
attuned to female ps*cholo,* and to women0s dual position in literar*
histor*.0 3!
-i9e @il"ert( @u"ar( and =iller( "el "rin,s to,ether women0s teBts from a
variet* of national literatures( choosin, to emphasiFe 0the constanc* of
certain emotional d*namics depicted in diverse cultural situations.0 Cet the
privile,in, of
>3#$>
,ender implies not onl* the constanc* "ut also the immuta"ilit* of these
d*namics. lthou,h ps*choanal*ticall* "ased models of feminist criticism
can now oAer us remar9a"le and persuasive readin,s of individual teBts
and can hi,hli,ht eBtraordinar* similarities "etween women writin, in a
variet* of cultural circumstances( the* cannot eBplain historical chan,e(
ethnic diAerence( or the shapin, force of ,eneric and economic factors. )o
consider these issues( we must ,o "e*ond ps*choanal*sis to a more
MeBi"le and comprehensive model of women0s writin, which places it in
the maBimum conteBt of culture.
Women's writing and women's culture
1 consider women0s literature as a speci7c cate,or*( not "ecause of
"iolo,*( "ut "ecause it is( in a sense( the literature of the coloniFed.
+hristiane Iochefort( 0)he Privile,e of +onsciousness0
theor* "ased on a model of women0s culture can provide( 1 "elieve( a
more complete and satisf*in, wa* to tal9 a"out the speci7cit* and
diAerence of women0s writin, than theories "ased in "iolo,*( lin,uistics( or
ps*choanal*sis. 1ndeed( a theor* of culture incorporates ideas a"out
women0s "od*( lan,ua,e( and ps*che "ut interprets them in relation to the
social conteBts in which the* occur. )he wa*s in which women
conceptualiFe their "odies and their seBual and reproductive functions are
intricatel* lin9ed to their cultural environments. )he female ps*che can "e
studied as the product or construction of cultural forces. -an,ua,e( too(
comes "ac9 into the picture( as we consider the social dimensions and
determinants of lan,ua,e use( the shapin, of lin,uistic "ehaviour and
cultural ideals. cultural theor* ac9nowled,es that there are important
diAerences "etween women as writers: class( race( nationalit*( and histor*
are literar* determinants as si,ni7cant as ,ender. :onetheless( women0s
culture forms a collective eBperience within the cultural whole( an
eBperience that "inds women writers to each other over time and space. 1t
is in the emphasis on the "indin, force of women0s culture that this
approach diAers from =arBist theories of cultural he,emon*.
5*potheses of women0s culture have "een developed over the last decade
primaril* "* anthropolo,ists( sociolo,ists( and social historians in order to
,et awa* from masculine s*stems( hierarchies( and values and to ,et at
the primar* and self>de7ned nature of female cultural eBperience. 1n the
7eld of women0s histor*( the concept of women0s culture is still
controversial( althou,h there is a,reement on its si,ni7cance as a
theoretical formulation. @erda -erner eBplains the importance of
eBaminin, women0s eBperience in its own terms:
'omen have "een left out of histor* not "ecause of the evil
conspiracies of men in ,eneral or male historians in particular( "ut
"ecause we have considered histor* onl* in male>centered terms.
'e have missed women and their activities( "ecause we have
as9ed questions of histor* which are inappropriate to women. )o
rectif* this( and to li,ht up areas of historical dar9ness we must( for
a time( focus on a woman>centered inquir*( considerin, the
possi"ilit* of the eBistence of a female culture within the ,eneral
culture shared "* men and women. 5istor* must include an
account of the
>3#%>
female eBperience over time and should include the development
of feminist consciousness as an essential aspect of women0s past.
)his is the primar* tas9 of women0s histor*. )he central question it
raises is: 'hat would histor* "e li9e if it were seen throu,h the
e*es of women and ordered "* values the* de7neR 32
1n de7nin, female culture( historians distin,uish "etween the roles(
activities( tastes( and "ehaviors prescri"ed and considered appropriate for
women and those activities( "ehaviors( and functions actuall* ,enerated
out of women0s lives. 1n the late>ei,hteenth and nineteenth centuries( the
term 0woman0s sphere0 eBpressed the Jictorian and ;ac9sonian vision of
separate roles for men and women( with little or no overlap and with
women su"ordinate. 'oman0s sphere was de7ned and maintained "*
men( "ut women frequentl* internaliFed its precepts in the merican 0cult
of true womanhood0 and the <n,lish 0feminine ideal0. 'omen0s culture(
however( rede7nes women0s 0activities and ,oals from a woman>centered
point of view. . . . )he term implies an assertion of equalit* and an
awareness of sisterhood( the communalit* of women.0 'omen0s culture
refers to 0the "road>"ased communalit* of values( institutions(
relationships( and methods of communication0 unif*in, nineteenth>centur*
female eBperience( a culture nonetheless with si,ni7cant variants "* class
and ethnic ,roup N =FP( pp. 4#( 4&O.
6ome feminist historians have accepted the model of separate spheres
and have seen the movement from woman0s sphere to women0s culture to
women0s>ri,hts activism as the consecutive sta,es of an evolutionar*
political process. 8thers see a more compleB and perpetual ne,otiation
ta9in, place "etween women0s culture and the ,eneral culture. s -erner
has ar,ued:
1t is important to understand that 0woman0s culture0 is not and
should not "e seen as a su"culture. 1t is hardl* possi"le for the
maHorit* to live in a su"culture. . . . 'omen live their social
eBistence within the ,eneral culture and( whenever the* are
con7ned "* patriarchal restraint or se,re,ation into separateness
Nwhich alwa*s has su"ordination as its purposeO( the* transform
this restraint into complementarit* Nassertin, the importance of
woman0s function( even its 0superiorit*0O and rede7ne it. )hus(
women live a dualit* >> as mem"ers of the ,eneral culture and as
parta9ers of women0s culture.
T =FP( p. 4#U
-erner0s views are similar to those of some cultural anthropolo,ists.
particularl* stimulatin, anal*sis of female culture has "een carried out "*
two 8Bford anthropolo,ists( 6hirle* and <dwin rdener. )he rdeners have
tried to outline a model of women0s culture which is not historicall* limited
and to provide a terminolo,* for its characteristics. )wo essa*s "* <dwin
rdener( 0.elief and the Pro"lem of 'omen0 N %23#O and 0)he /Pro"lem/
Ievisited0 N %234O( su,,est that women constitute a muted ,roup( the
"oundaries of whose culture and realit* overlap( "ut are not wholl*
contained "*( the dominant NmaleO ,roup. model of the cultural situation
of women is crucial to understandin, "oth how the* are perceived "* the
dominant ,roup and how the* perceive themselves and others. .oth
historians and anthropolo,ists emphasiFe the incompleteness of
androcentric models of histor* and culture and the inadequac* of such
models
>3##>
for the anal*sis of female eBperience. 1n the past( female eBperience which
could not "e accommodated "* androcentric models was treated as
deviant or simpl* i,nored. 8"servation from an eBterior point of view could
never "e the same as comprehension from within. rdener0s model also
has man* connections to and implications for current feminist literar*
theor*( since the concepts of perception( silence( and silencin, are so
central to discussions of women0s participation in literar* culture. &$
.* the term 0muted0( rdener su,,ests pro"lems "oth of lan,ua,e and of
power. .oth muted and dominant ,roups ,enerate "eliefs or orderin,
ideas of social realit* at the unconscious level( "ut dominant ,roups
control the forms or structures in which consciousness can "e articulated.
)hus muted ,roups must mediate their "eliefs throu,h the allowa"le forms
of dominant structures. nother wa* of puttin, this would "e to sa* that
all lan,ua,e is the lan,ua,e of the dominant order( and women( if the*
spea9 at all( must spea9 throu,h it. 5ow then( rdener as9s( 0does the
s*m"olic wei,ht of that other mass of persons eBpress itselfR0 1n his view(
women0s "eliefs 7nd eBpression throu,h ritual and art( eBpressions which
can "e deciphered "* the ethno,rapher( either female or male( who is
willin, to ma9e the eAort to perceive "e*ond the screens of the dominant
structure. &%
-et us now loo9 at rdener0s dia,ram of the relationship of the dominant
and the muted ,roup:
Sorry, diagram missing :(
Dnli9e the Jictorian model of complementar* spheres( rdener0s ,roups
are represented "* intersectin, circles. =uch of muted circle C falls within
the "oundaries of dominant circle V? there is also a crescent of C which is
outside the dominant "oundar* and therefore Nin rdener0s terminolo,*O
0wild0. 'e can thin9 of the 0wild Fone0 of women0s culture spatiall*(
eBperientiall*( or metaph*sicall*. 6patiall* it stands for an area which is
literall* no>man0s>land( a place for"idden to men( which corresponds to the
Fone in V which is oA limits to women. <Bperientiall* it stands for the
aspects of the female life>st*le which are outside of and unli9e those of
men? a,ain( there is a correspondin, Fone of male eBperience alien to
women. .ut if we thin9 of the wild Fone metaph*sicall*( or in terms of
consciousness( it has no correspondin, male space since all of male
consciousness is within the circle of the dominant structure and thus
accessi"le to or structured "* lan,ua,e. 1n this sense( the 0wild0 is alwa*s
ima,inar*? from the male point of view( it ma* simpl* "e the proHection of
the unconscious. 1n terms of cultural anthropolo,*( women 9now what the
male crescent is li9e( even if the* have never seen it( "ecause it "ecomes
the su"Hect of le,end Nli9e the wildernessO. .ut men do not 9now what is in
the wild.
>3#3>
For some feminist critics( the wild Fone( or 0female space(0 must "e the
address of a ,enuinel* women>centered criticism( theor*( and art( whose
shared proHect is to "rin, into "ein, the s*m"olic wei,ht of female
consciousness( to ma9e the invisi"le visi"le( to ma9e the silent spea9.
French feminist critics would li9e to ma9e the wild Fone the theoretical
"ase of women0s diAerence. 1n their teBts( the wild Fone "ecomes the
place for the revolutionar* women0s lan,ua,e( the lan,ua,e of ever*thin,
that is repressed( and for the revolutionar* women0s writin, in 0white in9.0
1t is the Dar9 +ontinent in which +iBous0s lau,hin, =edusa and 'itti,0s
,uLrillQres reside. )hrou,h voluntar* entr* into the wild Fone( other
feminist critics tell us( a woman can write her wa* out of the 0cramped
con7nes of patriarchal space.0 &# )he ima,es of this Hourne* are now
familiar in feminist quest 7ctions and in essa*s a"out them. )he
writer/heroine( often ,uided "* another woman( travels to the 0mother
countr*0 of li"erated desire and female authenticit*? crossin, to the other
side of the mirror( li9e lice in 'onderland( is often a s*m"ol of the
passa,e.
=an* forms of merican radical feminism also romanticall* assert that
women are closer to nature( to the environment( to a matriarchal principle
at once "iolo,ical and ecolo,ical. =ar* Dal* @*n/<colo,* and =ar,aret
twood novel 6urfacin, are teBts which create this feminist m*tholo,*. 1n
<n,lish and merican literature( women writers have often ima,ined
maFon Dtopias( cities or countries situated in the wild Fone or on its
"order: <liFa"eth @as9ell ,entle +ranford is pro"a"l* an maFon Dtopia? so
is +harlotte Per9ins @ilman 5erland or( to ta9e a recent eBample( ;oanna
Iuss 'hileawa*. few *ears a,o( the feminist pu"lishin, house
Dau,hters( 1nc. tried to create a "usiness version of the maFon Dtopia? as
-ois @ould reported in the :ew Cor9 )imes =a,aFine N # ;anuar* %233O(
0)he* "elieve the* are "uildin, the wor9in, models for the critical neBt
sta,e of feminism: full independence from the control and inMuence of
/male>dominated/ institutions >> the news media( the health( education(
and le,al s*stems( the art( theater( and literar* worlds( the "an9s.0
)hese fantasies of an id*llic enclave represent a phenomenon which
feminist criticism must reco,niFe in the histor* of women0s writin,. .ut we
must also understand that there can "e no writin, or criticism totall*
outside of the dominant structure? no pu"lication is full* independent from
the economic and political pressures of the male>dominated societ*. )he
concept of a woman0s teBt in the wild Fone is a pla*ful a"straction? in the
realit* to which we must address ourselves as critics( women0s writin, is a
0dou"le>voiced discourse0 that alwa*s em"odies the social( literar*( and
cultural herita,es of "oth the muted and the dominant. &3 nd insofar as
most feminist critics are also women writin,( this precarious herita,e is
one we share? ever* step that feminist criticism ta9es toward de7nin,
women0s writin, is a step toward self>understandin, as well? ever* account
of a female literar* culture and a female literar* tradition has parallel
si,ni7cance for our own place in critical histor* and critical tradition.
'omen writin, are not( then( inside and outside of the male tradition? the*
are inside two traditions simultaneousl*( 0undercurrents(0 in <llen =oers0s
metaphor( of the mainstream. )o miB metaphors a,ain( the literar* estate
of women( as =*ra ;ehlen sa*s( 0su,,ests . . . a more Muid ima,er* of
interactin, HuBtapositions( the point of which would "e to represent not so
much the territor*( as its de7nin,
>3#&>
"orders. 1ndeed( the female territor* mi,ht well "e envisioned as one lon,
"order( and independence for women( not as a separate countr*( "ut as
open access to the sea.0 s ;ehlen ,oes on to eBplain( an a,,ressive
feminist criticism must poise itself on this "order and must see women0s
writin, in its chan,in, historical and cultural relation to that other "od* of
teBts identi7ed "* feminist criticism not simpl* as literature "ut as 0men0s
writin,0. &&
)he diAerence of women0s writin,( then( can onl* "e understood in terms
of this compleB and historicall* ,rounded cultural relation. n important
aspect of rdener0s model is that there are muted ,roups other than
women? a dominant structure ma* determine man* muted structures.
"lac9 merican woman poet( for eBample( would have her literar* identit*
formed "* the dominant Nwhite maleO tradition( "* a muted women0s
culture( and "* a muted "lac9 culture. 6he would "e aAected "* "oth
seBual and racial politics in a com"ination unique to her case? at the same
time( as .ar"ara 6mith points out( she shares an eBperience speci7c to her
,roup: 0.lac9 women writers constitute an identi7a"le literar* tradition . . .
thematicall*( st*listicall*( aestheticall*( and conceptuall*. .lac9 women
writers manifest common approaches to the act of creatin, literature as a
direct result of the speci7c political( social( and economic eBperience the*
have "een o"li,ed to share.0 &4 )hus the 7rst tas9 of a ,*nocentric
criticism must "e to plot the precise cultural locus of female literar*
identit* and to descri"e the forces that intersect an individual woman
writer0s cultural 7eld. ,*nocentric criticism would also situate women
writers with respect to the varia"les of literar* culture( such as modes of
production and distri"ution( relations of author and audience( relations of
hi,h to popular art( and hierarchies of ,enre.
1nsofar as our concepts of literar* periodiFation are "ased on men0s
writin,( women0s writin, must "e forci"l* assimilated to an irrelevant ,rid?
we discuss a Ienaissance which is not a renaissance for women( a
Iomantic period in which women pla*ed ver* little part( a modernism with
which women conMict. t the same time( the on,oin, histor* of women0s
writin, has "een suppressed( leavin, lar,e and m*sterious ,aps in
accounts of the development of ,enre. @*nocentric criticism is alread*
well on the wa* to providin, us with another perspective on literar*
histor*. =ar,aret nne Dood*( for eBample( su,,ests that 0the period
"etween the death of Iichardson and the appearance of the novels of
6cott and usten0 which has 0"een re,arded as a dead period( a dull "lan90
is in fact the period in which late ei,hteenth>centur* women writers were
developin, 0the paradi,m for women0s 7ction of the nineteenth centur* >>
somethin, hardl* less than the paradi,m of the nineteenth>centur* novel
itself.0 &G )here has also "een a feminist reha"ilitation of the female
,othic( a mutation of a popular ,enre once "elieved mar,inal "ut now
seen as part of the ,reat tradition of the novel. &3 1n merican literature(
the pioneerin, wor9 of nn Dou,las( :ina .a*m( and ;ane )omp9ins(
amon, others( has ,iven us a new view of the power of women0s 7ction to
feminiFe nineteenth>centur* merican culture. &! nd feminist critics have
made us aware that 'oolf "elon,ed to a tradition other than modernism
and that this tradition surfaces in her wor9 precisel* in those places where
criticism has hitherto found o"scurities( evasions( implausi"ilities( and
imperfections. &2
8ur current theories of literar* inMuence also need to "e tested in terms of
women0s writin,. 1f a man0s teBt( as .loom and <dward 6aid have
maintained( is
>3#4>
fathered( then a woman0s teBt is not onl* mothered "ut parented( it
confronts "oth paternal and maternal precursors and must deal with the
pro"lems and advanta,es of "oth lines of inheritance. 'oolf sa*s in
Ioom of 8ne0s 8wn that 0a woman writin, thin9s "ac9 throu,h her
mothers.0 .ut a woman writin, unavoida"l* thin9s "ac9 throu,h her
fathers as well? onl* male writers can for,et or mute half of their
parenta,e. )he dominant culture need not consider the muted( eBcept to
rail a,ainst 0the woman0s part0 in itself. )hus we need more su"tle and
supple accounts of inMuence( not Hust to eBplain women0s writin, "ut also
to understand how men0s writin, has resisted the ac9nowled,ment of
female precursors.
'e must 7rst ,o "e*ond the assumption that women writers either imitate
their male predecessors or revise them and that this simple dualism is
adequate to descri"e the inMuences on the woman0s teBt. 1. . Iichards
once commented that the inMuence of @. <. =oore had had an enormous
ne,ative impact on his wor9: 01 feel li9e an o"verse of him. 'here there0s a
hole in him( there0s "ul,e in me.0 4$ )oo often women0s place in literar*
tradition is translated into the crude topo,raph* of hole and "ul,e( with
=ilton( .*ron( or <merson the "ul,in, "o,e*s on one side and women0s
literature from phra .ehn to drienne Iich a poc9ed moon surface of
revisionar* lacunae on the other. 8ne of the ,reat advanta,es of the
women0s>culture model is that it shows how the female tradition can "e a
positive source of stren,th and solidarit* as well as a ne,ative source of
powerlessness? it can ,enerate its own eBperiences and s*m"ols which are
not simpl* the o"verse of the male tradition.
5ow can a cultural model of women0s writin, help us to read a woman0s
teBtR 8ne implication of this model is that women0s 7ction can "e read as
a dou"levoiced discourse( containin, a 0dominant0 and a 0muted0 stor*(
what @il"ert and @u"ar call a 0palimpsest.0 1 have descri"ed it elsewhere
as an o"Hect/7eld pro"lem in which we must 9eep two alternative
oscillatin, teBts simultaneousl* in view: 01n the purest feminist literar*
criticism we are . . . presented with a radical alteration of our vision( a
demand that we see meanin, in what has previousl* "een empt* space.
)he orthodoB plot recedes( and another plot( hitherto su"mer,ed in the
anon*mit* of the "ac9,round( stands out in "old relief li9e a thum"print.0
=iller too sees 0another teBt0 in women0s 7ction( 0more or less muted from
novel to novel0 "ut 0alwa*s there to "e read0. 4%
nother interpretative strate,* for feminist criticism mi,ht "e the
conteBtual anal*sis that the cultural anthropolo,ist +liAord @eertF calls
0thic9 description0. @eertF calls for descriptions that see9 to understand
the meanin, of cultural phenomena and products "* 0sortin, out the
structures of si,ni7cation . . . and determinin, their social ,round and
import.0 4# ,enuinel* 0thic90 description of women0s writin, would insist
upon ,ender and upon a female literar* tradition amon, the multiple
strata that ma9e up the force of meanin, in a teBt. :o description( we
must concede( could ever "e thic9 enou,h to account for all the factors
that ,o into the wor9 of art. .ut we could wor9 toward completeness( even
as an unattaina"le ideal.
1n su,,estin, that a cultural model of women0s writin, has considera"le
usefulness for the enterprise of feminist criticism( 1 don0t mean to replace
ps*choanal*sis with cultural anthropolo,* as the answer to all our
theoretical pro"lems or to enthrone rdener and @eertF as the new white
father in place of Freud( -acan(
>3#G>
and .loom. :o theor*( however su,,estive( can "e a su"stitute for the
close and eBtensive 9nowled,e of women0s teBts which constitutes our
essential su"Hect. +ultural anthropolo,* and social histor* can perhaps
oAer us a terminolo,* and a dia,ram of women0s cultural situation. .ut
feminist critics must use this concept in relation to what women actuall*
write( not in relation to a theoretical( political( metaphoric( or visionar*
ideal of what women ou,ht to write.
1 "e,an "* recallin, that a few *ears a,o feminist critics thou,ht we were
on a pil,rima,e to the promised land in which ,ender would lose its power(
in which all teBts would "e seBless and equal( li9e an,els. .ut the more
precisel* we understand the speci7cit* of women0s writin, not as a
transient "*>product of seBism "ut as fundamental and continuall*
determinin, realit*( the more clearl* we realiFe that we have misperceived
our destination. 'e ma* never reach the promised land at all? for when
feminist critics see our tas9 as the stud* of women0s writin,( we realiFe
that the land promised to us is not the serenel* undiAerentiated
universalit* of teBts "ut the tumultuous and intri,uin, wilderness of
diAerence itself.
Notes TIeferences to 0this volume0 are to )he :ew Feminist +riticism
N%2!4O( ed. 6howalter.U
%. +arol*n @. 5eil"run and +atharine I. 6timpson( /0)heories of Feminist
+riticism: Dialo,ue0/( in Feminist -iterar* +riticism( ed. ;osephine Donovan
N -eBin,ton: Dniversit* Press of Eentuc9*( %234O( p. G&. 1 also discuss this
distinction in m* 0)oward a Feminist Poetics0( in this volume( pp. %#4>&3? a
num"er of the ideas in the 7rst part of the present essa* are raised more "rieM*
in the earlier piece.
#. :o women critics are discussed in @eoAre* 5artman +riticism in the
'ilderness: )he 6tud* of -iterature )oda* N :ew 5aven( +onn.: Cale Dniversit*
Press( %2!$O( "ut he does descri"e a feminine spirit called 0the =use of +riticism0:
0more a ,overness than a =use( the stern dau,hter of "oo9s no lon,er read under
trees and in the 7elds0 Np. %34O.
3. 6ee m* /0-iterar* +riticism0/( Ieview <ssa*( 6i,ns 1 N'inter %234O: &34>G$.
&. nnette Eolodn*( /0-iterar* +riticism0/( Ieview <ssa*( 6i,ns # N'inter
%23GO: &#$.
4. 8n "lac9 criticism( see .ar"ara 6mith( /0)oward a .lac9 Feminist +riticism0/(
in this volume( pp. %G!>!4( and =ar* 5elen 'ashin,ton( /0:ew -ives and :ew
-etters: .lac9 'omen 'riters at the <nd of the 6eventies0/( +olle,e <n,lish &3
N ;anuar* %2!%O: %%%. 8n =arBist criticism( see the =arBist>Feminist -iterature
+ollective0s 0'omen0s 'ritin,0( 1deolo,* and +onsciousness 3 N6prin, %23!O: #3>
&!( a collectivel* written anal*sis of several nineteenth>centur* women0s novels
which ,ives equal wei,ht to ,ender( class( and literar* production as teBtual
determinants.
G. =ar,aret 5omans( 'omen 'riters and Poetic 1dentit*: Doroth*
'ordsworth( <mil* .rontX( and <mil* Dic9inson N Princeton( :.;.: Princeton
Dniversit* Press( %2!$O( p. %$.
3. ;osephine Donovan( 0fterward: +ritical Ievision0( Feminist -iterar*
+riticism( p. 3&. ;udith Fetterle*( )he Iesistin, Ieader: Feminist pproach to
merican Fiction N .loomin,ton: 1ndiana Dniversit* Press( %23!O( p. viii. 6ee m*
/0)oward a Feminist Poetics(0/ pp. %#4>&3. )he uthorit* of <Bperience is the title
of an antholo,* edited "* rl*n Diamond and -ee I. <dwards N mherst( =ass.:
Dniversit* of =assachusetts Press( %233O.
!. :ina uer"ach( /0Feminist +riticism Ieviewed0/( in @ender and -iterar*
Joice( ed. ;anet )odd N :ew Cor9: 5olmes Y =eier( %2!$O( p. #4!.
2. drienne Iich( /0'hen 'e Dead wa9en: 'ritin, as Ie>Jision0/( 8n -ies(
6ecrets( and 6ilence N :ew Cor9: '. '. :orton( %232O( p. 34.
%$. nnette Eolodn*( /0Dancin, throu,h the =ine7eld: 6ome 8"servations on
the )heor*( Practice( and Politics of a Feminist -iterar* +riticism0/( in this volume.
)he complete theoretical case for a feminist hermeneutics is outlined in Eolodn*
essa*s( includin, /06ome :otes on De7nin, a Feminist -iterar* +riticism0/( +ritical
1nquir* # Nutumn %234O: 34>2#? /0 =ap for Iereadin,? or( @ender and the
1nterpretation of -iterar* )eBts(0/ in this volume( pp. &G>G#? and 0)he )heor* of
Feminist +riticism0 Npaper delivered at the :ational +enter for the 5umanities
+onference on Feminist +riticism( Iesearch )rian,le Par9( :.+.( =arch %2!%O.
%%. 6andra =. @il"ert( /0'hat Do Feminist +ritics 'antR Postcard from the
Jolcano0/( in this volume( p. 3G.
%#. +hristiane =a9ward( /0)o .e or :ot to .e. . . . Feminist 6pea9er0/( in )he
Future of DiAerence( ed. 5ester <isenstein and lice ;ardine N .oston: @. E. 5all(
%2!$O( p. %$#. 8n -acan( see ;ane @allop( /0)he -adies0 =an0/( Diacritics G N'inter
%23GO: #!>3&? on =achere*( see the =arBist>Feminist -iterature +ollective0s
0'omen0s 'ritin,.0
%3. Patricia =e*er 6pac9s( )he Female 1ma,ination N :ew Cor9: lfred . Enopf(
%234O( pp. %2( 3#.
%&. 5LlQne +iBous( /0)he -au,h of the =edusa(0/ trans. Eeith and Paula +ohen(
6i,ns % N6ummer %23GO: !3!. :anc* E. =iller( /0<mphasis dded: Plots and
Plausi"ilities in 'omen0s Fiction0/( in this volume( pp. 332>G$.
%4. For an overview( see Domna +. 6taunton( /0-an,ua,e and Ievolution: )he
Francomerican Dis>+onnection0/( in <isenstein and ;ardine( Future of DiAerence(
pp. 33!3( and <laine =ar9s and 1sa"elle de +ourtivron( eds.( :ew French
Feminisms N mherst: Dniversit* of =assachusetts Press( %232O? all further
references to :ew French Feminisms( a""reviated :FF( will hereafter "e included
with translator0s name parentheticall* in the teBt.
%G. )wo maHor wor9s are the manifesto of the =arBist>Feminist -iterature
+ollective( 0'omen0s 'ritin,0( and the papers from the 8Bford Dniversit* lectures
on women and literature( =ar* ;aco"us( ed.( 'omen 'ritin, and 'ritin, a"out
'omen N :ew Cor9: .arnes Y :o"le 1mports( %232O.
%3. 6andra =. @il"ert and 6usan @u"ar( )he =adwoman in the ttic: )he
'oman 'riter and the :ineteenth>+entur* -iterar* 1ma,ination N :ew 5aven(
+onn.: Cale Dniversit* Press( %232O( pp. G( 3.
%!. :ina uer"ach( review of =adwoman( Jictorian 6tudies #3 N6ummer %2!$O:
4$G.
%2. Dou,las ;errold( quoted in Eathleen )illotson( :ovels of the <i,hteen>Forties
N -ondon: 8Bford Dniversit* Press( %2G%O( p. 32 n. ;ames ;o*ce ima,ined the
creator as female and literar* creation as a process of ,estation? see Iichard
<llmann( ;ames ;o*ce: .io,raph* N -ondon: 8Bford Dniversit* Press( %242O( pp.
3$G>!.
#$. +arol*n @. .ur9e( /0Ieport from Paris: 'omen0s 'ritin, and the 'omen0s
=ovement0/( 6i,ns 3 N6ummer %23!O: !4%.
#%. drienne Iich( 8f 'oman .orn: =otherhood as <Bperience and 1nstitution N
:ew Cor9: '. '. :orton( %23GO( p. G#. .iofeminist criticism has "een inMuential in
other disciplines as well: e.,.( art critics( such as ;ud* +hica,o and -uc* -ippard(
have su,,ested that women artists are compelled to use a uterine or va,inal
icono,raph* of centraliFed focus( curved lines( and tactile or sensuous forms. 6ee
-ippard( From the +enter: Feminist <ssa*s on 'omen0s rt N :ew Cor9: <. P.
Dutton( %23GO.
##. 6ee licia 8stri9er( /0.od* -an,ua,e: 1ma,er* of the .od* in 'omen0s
Poetr*0/( in )he 6tate of the -an,ua,e( ed. -eonard =ichaels and +hristopher
Iic9s N .er9ele*: Dniversit* of +alifornia Press( %2!$O( pp. #&3>G3( and )erence
Di,,or*( /0rmoured 'omen( :a9ed =en: Dic9inson( 'hitman( and )heir
6uccessors0/( in 6ha9espeare0s6isters: Feminist <ssa*s on 'omen Poets 6isters:
Feminist <ssa*s on 'omen Poets( ed. 6andra =. @il"ert and 6usan @u"ar
N .loomin,ton: 1ndiana Dniversit* Press( %232O( pp. %34>4$.
#3. Iachel .lau DuPlessis( /0'ashin, .lood0/( Feminist 6tudies & N ;une %23!O:
%$. )he entire issue is an important document of feminist criticism.
#&. :anc* E. =iller( /0'omen0s uto"io,raph* in France: For a Dialectics of
1denti7cation0/( in 'omen and -an,ua,e in -iterature and 6ociet*( ed. 6all*
=c+onnell>@inet( Iuth .or9er( and :ell* Furnam N :ew Cor9: Prae,er( %2!$O( p.
#3%.
#4. :ell* Furnam( 0)he 6tud* of 'omen and -an,ua,e: +omment Jol. 3( :o. 30(
6i,ns & Nutumn %23!O: %!#.
#G. .ur9e( 0Ieport from Paris0( p. !&&.
#3. ;aco"us( /0)he DiAerence of Jiew0/( in 'omen0s 'ritin, and 'ritin, a"out
'omen( pp. %#>%3. 6hoshana Felman( /0'omen and =adness: )he +ritical
Phallac*0/( Diacritics 4 N'inter %234O: %$.
#!. 8n women0s lan,ua,e( see 6arah .. Pomero*( @oddesses( 'hores( 'ives(
and 6laves: 'omen in +lassical ntiquit* N :ew Cor9: 6choc9en .oo9s( %23GO( p.
#&? 6all* =c+onnell>@inet ( /0-in,uistics and the Feminist +hallen,e0/( in 'omen
and -an,ua,e( p. %&? and ;oan =. -ewis( <cstatic Ieli,ion N %23%O( cited in 6hirle*
rdener( ed.( Perceivin, 'omen N :ew Cor9: 5alsted Press( %23!O( p. 4$.
#2. +liAord @eertF( )he 1nterpretation of +ultures N :ew Cor9: .asic .oo9s(
%233O( pp. #&%>#.
3$. =c+onnell>@inet( /0-in,uistics and the Feminist +hallen,e0/( pp. %3( %G.
3%. Jir,inia 'oolf( /06peech( =anuscript :otes0/( )he Par,iters: )he :ovel>
<ssa* Portion of the Cears %!!#>%2&%( ed. =itchell . -eas9a N :ew Cor9: :ew Cor9
Pu"lic -i"rar*( %233O( p. %G&.
3#. Kuoted in <ri9a Freeman( 1nsi,hts: +onversations with )heodor Iei9
N <n,lewood +liAs( :.;.: Prentice>5all( %23%O( p. %GG. Iei9 ,oes on( 0.ut what the
hell( writin,Z )he ,reat tas9 of a woman is to "rin, a child into the world.0
33. +ora Eaplan( 0-an,ua,e and @ender0( unpu"lished paper( Dniversit* of
6usseB( %233( p. 3.
3&. @il"ert and @u"ar( =adwoman in the ttic( p. 4$.
34. 6ee nnis Pratt( /0)he :ew Feminist +riticisms0/( in .e*ond 1ntellectual
6eBism: :ew 'oman( a :ew Iealit*( ed. ;oan 1. Io"erts N :ew Cor9: -on,man(
%23GO? .ar"ara 5. Ii,ne*( =adness and 6eBual Politics in the Feminist :ovel:
6tudies in .rontX( 'oolf( -essin,( and twood N =adison: Dniversit* of 'isconsin
Press( %23!O? and nn Dou,las( /0=rs. 6i,ourne* and the 6ensi"ilit* of the 1nner
6pace0/( :ew <n,land Kuarterl* &4 N ;une %23#O: %G3>!%.
3G. :anc* +hodorow( /0@ender( Ielation( and DiAerence in Ps*choanal*tic
Perspective0/( in <isenstein and ;ardine( Future of DiAerence( p. %%. 6ee also
+hodorow et al.( /08n )he Ieproduction of =otherin,. methodolo,ical De"ate0/(
6i,ns G N6prin, %2!%O: &!#>4%&.
33. 6ee( e.,.( )he -ost )radition: =others and Dau,hters in -iterature( ed.
+ath* =. Davidson and <. =. .roner N :ew Cor9: Frederic9 Dn,ar( %2!$O? this wor9
is more en,a,ed with m*ths and ima,es of matrilinea,e than with rede7nin,
female identit*.
3!. <liFa"eth "el( /0N<O=er,in, 1dentities: )he D*namics of Female Friendship
in +ontemporar* Fiction "* 'omen0/( 6i,ns G N6prin, %2!%O: &3&.
32. @erda -erner( /0)he +hallen,e of 'omen0s 5istor*0/( )he =aHorit* Finds 1ts
Past: Placin, 'omen in 5istor* N :ew Cor9: 8Bford Dniversit* Press( %232O? all
further references to this "oo9( a""reviated =FP( will hereafter "e included
parentheticall* in the teBt.
&$. 6ee( e.,.( )illie 8lsen( 6ilences N :ew Cor9: Delacorte Press( %23!O? 6heila
Iow"otham( 'oman0s +onsciousness( =an0s 'orld N :ew Cor9: Pen,uin .oo9s(
%23&O( pp. 3%>33? and =arcia -and*( /0)he 6ilent 'oman: )owards a Feminist
+ritique0/( in Diamond and <dwards( uthorit* of <Bperience Nn. 3 a"oveO( pp. %G>
#3.
&%. <dwin rdener( 0.elief and the Pro"lem of 'omen0( in 6. rdener(
Perceivin, 'omen Nnote #! a"oveO( p. 3.
&#. =ari =c+art*( /0Possessin, Female 6pace: )he )ender 6hoot0/( 'omen0s
6tudies ! N %2!%O: 3G!.
&3. 6usan -anser and <vel*n )orton .ec9( /0T'h*U re )here :o @reat 'omen
+riticsR nd 'hat DiAerence Does 1t =a9eR0/ in )he Prism of 6eB: <ssa*s in the
6ociolo,* of Enowled,e( ed. .ec9 and ;ulia . 6herman N =adison: Dniversit* of
'isconsin Press( %232O( p. !G.
&&. =*ra ;ehlen( /0rchimedes and the ParadoB of Feminist +riticism0/( 6i,ns G
NFall %2!%O: 4!#.
&4. 6mith( /0.lac9 Feminist +riticism.0/ 6ee also @loria ). 5ull( /0fro>merican
'omen Poets: .io>+ritical 6urve*0/( in @il"ert and @u"ar( 6ha9espeare0s 6isters(
pp. %G4!#( and <laine =ar9s( /0-es"ian 1nterteBtualit*0/( in 5omoseBualities and
French -iterature( ed. =ar9s and @eor,e 6tam"olian N 1thaca( :.C.: +ornell
Dniversit* Press( %232O.
&G. =ar,aret nne Dood*( /0@eor,e <liot and the <i,hteenth>+entur* :ovel0/(
:ineteenth+entur* Fiction 34 N Decem"er %2!$O: #G3>G!.
&3. 6ee( e.,.( ;udith 'ilt( @hosts of the @othic: usten( <liot( and -awrence
N Princeton( :.;.: Princeton Dniversit* Press( %2!$O.
&!. 6ee nn Dou,las( )he FeminiFation of merican +ulture N :ew Cor9: lfred
. Enopf( %233O? :ina .a*m( 'oman0s Fiction: @uide to :ovels "* and a"out
'omen in merica( %!#$>%!3$ N 1thaca( :.C.: +ornell Dniversit* Press( %23!O? and
;ane P. )omp9ins ( 06entimental Power: Dncle )om0s +a"in and the Politics of
-iterar* 5istor*0( in this volume.
&2. 6ee( e.,.( the anal*sis of 'oolf in 6andra =. @il"ert( /0+ostumes of the
=ind: )ransvestism as =etaphor in =odern -iterature0/( +ritical 1nquir* 3 N'inter
%2!$O: 32%&%3.
4$. 1. . Iichards( quoted in ;ohn Paul Iusso( /0 6tud* in 1nMuence: )he =oore>
Iichards Paradi,m0/( +ritical 1nquir* 4 N6ummer %232O: G!3.
4%. 6howalter( /0-iterar* +riticism0/( p. &34? =iller( /0<mphasis dded0/. )o ta9e
one eBample( whereas ;ane <*re had alwa*s "een read in relation to an implied
0dominant0 7ctional and social mode and had thus "een perceived as Mawed(
feminist readin,s fore,round its muted s*m"olic strate,ies and eBplore its
credi"ilit* and coherence in its own terms. Feminist critics revise views li9e those
of Iichard +hase( who descri"es Iochester as castrated( thus impl*in, that ;ane0s
neurosis is penis env*( and @. rmour +rai,( who sees the novel as ;ane0s
stru,,le for superiorit*( to see ;ane instead as health* within her own s*stem(
that is( a women0s societ*. 6ee +hase( /0)he .rontXs? or( =*th Domesticated0/( in
;ane <*re N :ew Cor9: '. '. :orton( %23%O( pp. &G#>3%? +rai,( /0)he Dnpoetic
+ompromise: 8n the Ielation "etween Private Jision and 6ocial 8rder in
:ineteenth>+entur* <n,lish Fiction0/( in 6elf and 6ociet*( ed. =ar9 6chorer N :ew
Cor9( %24GO( pp. 3$>&%? :anc* Pell( /0Iesistance( Ie"ellion( and =arria,e: )he
<conomics of ;ane <*re0/( :ineteenth>+entur* Fiction 3% N =arch %233O: 323>&#$?
5elene =o,len( +harlotte .rontX: )he 6elf +onceived N :ew Cor9: '. '. :orton(
%233O? drienne Iich( /0;ane <*re: )he )emptations of a =otherless 'oman0/( =6(
8cto"er %233? and =aurianne dams( 0;ane <*re: 'oman0s <state0( in Diamond
and <dwards( uthorit* of <Bperience( pp. %33>42.
4#. @eertF( 1nterpretation of +ulture( p. 2.